- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:45:30 -0700
- To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> I feel like I'm not making any progress here though in one idea, and > that is that linking to "RDF" is almost like linking to "XML" -- one > needs to specify what specific grammar of RDF is being served. Otherwise, > the processor has no understanding of the semantics of the received RDF. Very perceptive - since this list is populated by people who are interested in RDF as a general tool that abstracts out the details of particular grammars, then it would seem a bit odd to find people here who thought RDF was not useful in such contexts. I am sure we can all understand the trepidation of someone who is not an RDF-Head, but that doesn't make the entire approach invalid. I have to ask if you have yet read the Cambridge Communique? This question of "processor has no understanding" should have been suitably answered in that -- the XHTML processor may wish to validate the most basic things about the structure of the RDF section, using an XML Schema, but it is not necessary, desirable, or even remotely useful to have the XHTML processor attempt to validate any further -- the validation of the semantics, the RDF grammar(s) being used, etc. -- all of these are the domain of RDF, and should not be the concern of XHTML.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 19:49:21 UTC